Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary socialism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 12:35Z 

Revolutionary socialism

 * — (View AfD)

Unsourced and arbitrary, with unclear encyclopediatic value. The socialist movement was divided in the 1910s into a revolutionary and reformist wing, the revolutionary being the communist movement and the reformist being the social democratic. There are other ideologically tendencies that are both socialist and revolutionary, but there is no common denominator. --Soman 19:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unsourced can easily be fixed, and it's a thoroughly valid concept, whether or not you like it. -Amarkov blahedits 19:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment are you arguing for delete or keep? --Soman 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, sorry. -Amarkov blahedits 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, the issue if hardly whether i like or dislike this concept. rather I question whether there is any real substance to this article other than [revolutionary socialism = communism + anarchism]. If not, then it should not have a separate article. --Soman 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the Revolutionary Socialists in Russia during the Revolution? And the parties in many countries (e.g., the Netherlands) which used this did not want to call themselves "communist" since this term was connected with the Soviet Union? --Bever
 * Yes, what about them? Do they constitute a separate political tendency? --Soman 10:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Bever —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.10.149.151 (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * You could make the same argument for Anarcho-capitalism, [anarcho-capitalism = anarchism + capitalism]. -Amarkov blahedits 19:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: no, i think there is a difference. the relation is the opposite. anarcho-communism is a separate tendency from the mainstream anarchism. revolutionary socialism is not a separate communist or anarchist tendency, rather its a category that encompasses both communists and anarchists. However, except for being a) revolutionary and b) socialists, communist and anarchists have little in common. --Soman 19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and add sources. Noteworthy topic, but it needs better coverage than this. Heimstern Läufer 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and source. A political group can be called pretty much what its members want to call it.--Anthony.bradbury 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: which political group? --Soman 19:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - do explain why Britannica has an article on this exact title. Baka man  19:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, doesn't the Britannica seem to give little additional definition than revolutionary socialism = socialism that is revolutionary ? --Soman 19:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Britannica. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep through personal experience -- many members of an organization with which I am involved describe themselves as revolutionary socialists, and are neither anarchists or Communists (i.e., Marxist-Leninists). The article as it currently stands is unsatisfactory and I've wanted to try to clean it up and expand it, but haven't had the time or sources on hand to do so.  I'm reasonably confident there are such sources, but since I won't have an opportunity to look into them myself for several weeks, my keep will have to be weak. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Brittanica. Ford MF 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:N notable termRaveenS 20:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite a lot happened in the socialist movement after 1910, and we shouldn't oversimplify. The sects may sometimes be hard to distinguish, but that's what an encyclopedia is for. DGG 02:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.